In the subsequent paragraph I will present a discussion based on the main findings from the analyses and set them in the context of the presented theoretical framework.
As computer-mediated environments develop in different domains, there is an interest in understanding how social interaction is important for successful collaboration via computer media (Haythornthwaite, 2001). Most of the studies that have investigated the challenges related to knowledge sharing in the context of virtual teams, point to the fact that knowledge sharing relies on face-to-face encounters, cohesive social ties, dialogic practices, shared norms and especially interpersonal trust (Jarvenpaa & Majchrzak, 2008; Mooradian et al., 2006). However the physical distance between the actors reduces the number of opportunities for face-to-face encounters. Moreover the absence of face-to-face encounters generally diminishes trust and cohesion between actors, thus compromises knowledge sharing (Malhotra et al., 2007). On top of this, a key challenge in knowledge sharing is that knowledge is context specific and multi- faceted by nature, and a great amount of the knowledge shared is subjective and continuously recreated and reconstituted in social interactions (Nonaka et al., 2001; Von Krogh, 1998). Research shows that social interaction ties significantly and positively affect the quantity of knowledge shared (Chiu, Hsu, & Wang, 2006), moreover close social interaction will make individuals more able to increase the depth, breadth and efficiency of knowledge sharing (Lane & Lubatkin, 1998). This is in consistency with the empirical evidence found in this study. This thesis has taken a socio-cultural perspective on knowledge sharing, and argued that knowledge is constructed and negotiated through social interaction. Accordingly, this thesis has argued that close relationships, interpersonal trust, frequent interaction and time spent on interaction will support the extent to which the awareness and understanding of ideas, logics, relationships, and circumstances in a project are !t for use, easy to adapt, and relevant and valuable to the context.
However, empirical evidence form this study shows that social interaction ties are multiplex. The component of a social interaction tie that had the most impact on the quality of knowledge shared between members of a virtual team was Competence-based Trust ties. Secondly, Frequency of Communication ties
knowledge shared in these ties. Furthermore, Benevolence-based Trust ties had some effect on the knowledge shared, whereas Close Relationship ties are shown to only have a small noticeable impact on the quality of knowledge shared between team members in a virtual team. All together, knowledge was reported as being useful in all but a few Social Interaction ties. Moreover, it is apparent that members in a virtual team that are connected by strong Social Interaction ties, will share knowledge of higher quality than members that are connected by weak Social Interaction ties. Consequently, empirical evidence supports the notion that the strength of social interaction ties between members of a virtual team will positively affect the quality of knowledge shared in these ties, when the knowledge shared is complex and tacit in nature.
Communication is a central part of working life. People communicate to form friendships, to coordinate their work, to validate their actions, to legitimate their positions, and to give each other support. In the virtual work environment, co-workers have a variety of means through which they can exchange these many kinds of information (Haythornthwaite, 1996a). Nevertheless, evidence from previous research shows that the flow of knowledge occurs in social relations, and that people are more likely to turn to other people rather than documents for information (Levin, Cross, & Abrams, 2004). Empirical evidence from this study shows that in three of four teams members that communicated more frequently and used more time on interaction, shared knowledge of higher quality. This implies that frequency of communication ties and time spent on interaction ties have an evident effect on the quality of knowledge shared between members of a virtual team. Furthermore, this is in consistency with previous research that states that the more social interactions members undertake, the greater the intensity and breadth of knowledge should be exchanged.
Research suggests that people turn to the members that they know have given them useful advice in the past. Thus shared language is likely to develop between team members that communicate frequently and that use more time on interaction. Previous research shows that because team members cannot see each other’s work in the virtual setting, a shared understanding of the role, language and accountability of each actor is necessary (Kauppila, Rajala, & Jyrämä, 2011). When team members develop a shared language they are likely to gain access to other people in the network and their information, and provide a common conceptual apparatus for evaluating the benefits of information exchange (Chiu,
Hsu, & Wang, 2006). Moreover, the common understanding that virtual team members develop as they communicate through technological solutions is a result of social activities and actions (Filstad, 2010). However, frequent communication can be a function of work interdependence beyond voluntary control of the individual workers (Levin, Cross, & Abrams, 2004), because interaction in general is likely to be a part of a formal reporting pattern. Moreover commitment to a virtual project often conflict with on-site deadlines and responsibilities (Rosen, Fürst, & Blackburn, 2007). The virtual team members in this study often worked at more than one project at a time. Hence the team members felt overwhelmed with workload and pressure from on-site co-workers, which made it harder to share information with virtual team members. These facts will obvious make it harder to maintain the part of the social interaction ties that involves frequent communication and more time spent on interaction.
What a person knows is to a great extent a function of whom he knows (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Accordingly, teams in which the members are aware of the other team members skills and expertise, perform better than teams in which the team members do not possess such knowledge (Kauppila, Rajala, & Jyrämä, 2011). Thus it is important for virtual team members to learn how to gain the best access to people and learn about their preferences for how to communicate. For example are some people quick to respond to e-mails, others easier to call, and then other again insist on using face-to-face communication. However, research shows that it is not enough to focus exclusively on whom he knows, without taking into consideration how well he knows them (Moran, 2005). Hence, developing an understanding of other people’s knowledge and skills is only a part of building a collaborative relationship. Empirical evidence from this study shows that in just one of four teams, the members that maintained close relationships, shared knowledge of higher quality. However, previous research shows that the response time for professional appeals was twice as long as for personal appeals (Cross & Parker, 2004). This fact would at least suggest that close relationships impact the process of sharing knowledge.
It is not always people trust the team members they know well (Levin, Cross, & Abrams, 2004). Moreover arguments have been made that the most useful knowledge of all comes from people that you do not know very well, but who you trust to be benevolent and competent (Levin, Cross, & Abrams, 2004).
by competence-based trust ties shared knowledge of higher quality. Hence, competence-based trust was found to be the strongest component of a social interaction tie for the sharing of high quality knowledge. Additionally, it is evident that people who develop personal connections, also believe that the person with whom they share personal details also are genuine concerned about them (Abrams et al., 2003). This fact might make it easier to ask other team members for help, and thus acquire knowledge that is more relevant for the context and fit to use. However, empirical evidence from this study shows that this is the case in only two out of four teams. Hence, benevolence-based trust ties does not necessarily make team members share knowledge of higher quality. In sum, this implies that team members that are connected by strong interpersonal trust ties do not necessarily share knowledge of higher quality than team members connected by weak interpersonal trust ties.
Altogether, empirical evidence supports the notion that social interaction ties are multiplex. Accordingly, the preferred combination of social interaction tie components that will lead to the sharing of high quality knowledge depends on the circumstances and the nature of the knowledge shared. However, in three out of four teams, team members that were connected by strong social interaction ties were found to share knowledge of higher quality, than team members that were connected by weak social interaction ties. The previous discussions therefore suggest the notion that the strength of social interaction ties between members of a virtual team will positively affect the quality of knowledge shared in these ties, when the knowledge shared is complex and tacit in nature.